massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
Questions on Affective Massage Therapy
Yep, that's with an "A"!
An editorial on "Affective Massage Therapy" in the IJTMB made me raise a few questions, not just about research, but also about what is going on in the everyday results I see in my practice.
First of all the articles addresses something which I have seen in other articles that have to do with a defect in the analysis of previous studies - a within group analysis done with a between groups design. Can someone explain this a little more? How prevalent is this defect in analysis in all of Field's research?
The article then goes on to talk about first and second order effects. This is something that I've wondered about a lot in my practice. Research has shown that MT lowers anxiety and depression - by lowering them alone, a myriad of health problems can possibly be alleviated. The article also I made me bring up my sleep question again, which might in turn lead to other results.
The identification of a subfield "Affective" Massage Therapy made me wonder if I needed to go and take a course in English grammar. Basically it is the "observable components of an individual's feelings, moods an emotions" and it addresses some areas in which research could be done. The anatomic sites would be an interesting study, just because I frequently hear "Why is it that a hand massage feels so good?" from clients. Other sites that came to mind would be feet, back and scalp (weird, I know - some clients just want to relax)
I've a question on the "Experience Effects". With the pediatric study which was an overview of 24 RCTs, it looks like for each study the same therapist was used for each application (probably to ensure standardisation in the protocol and application). Since there was such an increase in the levels of stress reduction as the recipients got more familiar with massage therapy, could that also have been attributed to the recipient being more comfortable with the therapist?
Also, as far as cortisol levels go, how do people view the Lawler/Cameron RCT that showed that cortisol levels were reduced with massage?
Also, on a different thread there was a reference made to studies on the client/therapist relationship.
Since this seems to be addressed quite a bit in the discussions on here, what's the latest from a research perspective (Robin brought it up on one of the threads, so I'll throw it up on here again).?
An editorial on "Affective Massage Therapy" in the IJTMB made me raise a few questions, not just about research, but also about what is going on in the everyday results I see in my practice.
First of all the articles addresses something which I have seen in other articles that have to do with a defect in the analysis of previous studies - a within group analysis done with a between groups design. Can someone explain this a little more? How prevalent is this defect in analysis in all of Field's research?
The article then goes on to talk about first and second order effects. This is something that I've wondered about a lot in my practice. Research has shown that MT lowers anxiety and depression - by lowering them alone, a myriad of health problems can possibly be alleviated. The article also I made me bring up my sleep question again, which might in turn lead to other results.
The identification of a subfield "Affective" Massage Therapy made me wonder if I needed to go and take a course in English grammar. Basically it is the "observable components of an individual's feelings, moods an emotions" and it addresses some areas in which research could be done. The anatomic sites would be an interesting study, just because I frequently hear "Why is it that a hand massage feels so good?" from clients. Other sites that came to mind would be feet, back and scalp (weird, I know - some clients just want to relax)
I've a question on the "Experience Effects". With the pediatric study which was an overview of 24 RCTs, it looks like for each study the same therapist was used for each application (probably to ensure standardisation in the protocol and application). Since there was such an increase in the levels of stress reduction as the recipients got more familiar with massage therapy, could that also have been attributed to the recipient being more comfortable with the therapist?
Also, as far as cortisol levels go, how do people view the Lawler/Cameron RCT that showed that cortisol levels were reduced with massage?
Also, on a different thread there was a reference made to studies on the client/therapist relationship.
Since this seems to be addressed quite a bit in the discussions on here, what's the latest from a research perspective (Robin brought it up on one of the threads, so I'll throw it up on here again).?
Views: 457
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Stephen Jeffrey on
-
Vlad
This sounds like a really wonderful ship and I'd love to be on board clashing mugs of tullamore dew together, a golden sunset with warm winds filling the sails and blowing through our hair ?
Vlad said = Some people might think that research/scientific perspective and intuition are mutually exclusive. Why is that? Why can't we pay attention to both? You talk about empowering the client in the initial interview in your blog, but is there not also a certain amount of empowerment for the therapist that comes from examining the scientific perspective - even if the information is dismissed?
The above is all so wonderfull when it supports what intuition and hands already know, but what if , the "science" directly attacks what for you is a cheerished truth !
For me my mistake was to look beyond the articles and go to the web sites frequented by the persons involved. This was a highly regrettable experience as I found some of what was there disturbing enough to shutdown my inquisitive openess as I feared a contamination that I may take into my treatment room. ( sad but true ).
As MT's we must be completely open to information and intuition, I am sure I will return to the science at a later date when prehaps I'm better prepared.
Chriss = By the way, I do think intuition is important in massage therapy, along with focus/mindfulness/presence/being in the moment or whatever one prefers to call it. That is notoriously hard to assess, as evidenced by the fact that there isn't even an agreed upon term for what it is.
Girls I can only wish you the all the very best as you sail voyage with science, especially carrying the baggage of an expert who's comments come straight off the poop deck. Go on girls get out the blindfold and a plank !
-
-
Marrisa I think we should sail alongside to help their helmswoman?
Yes they got modern radar system, but by the time they get the piere reveiwed research confirmed the rocks may have already ripped them open.
They will be glad of a support vessel, even if it is woo woo powered.
Marissa Macias said:It is most likely that I am not alone. I think that there are a lot of us "body-workers" out here being pulled along in a little tug boat by the big bad barge. I'm going to semi-quote Laura Allen when I say that I feel like a kindergarten student in a room full of college professors. I "know" what my hands tell me and I "know" what my clients tell me. To sit back and take it apart and question all the variables is mind-boggling. We are often taught that "intuition" is key in this field. However, when you take the intuition variable out of the equation what are you left with? Training, yes. But what are the guiding principles behind the training? Keep it coming, Professors, we are all ears... or eyes, slowly glazing over, as the case may be. ;)
Christopher A. Moyer said:Marissa, your post was much too modest. :) I'm glad you made it though. It lets us know that maybe there are some folks who are just reading, in addition to the folks like myself who keep on posting (and posting, and posting...)
-
Permalink Reply by Marissa on
-
Stephen- this is where it gets interesting! I am "open" to many different things, whether they be powered by science or by woo-woo. I do have to state though that I do not practice any woo-woo. :) Not because I don't believe that it is out there or that it doesn't work for others. Simply for the fact that I don't understand it. As previously stated, if it comes to fruition that a specific therapy is the end all cure all, are we all going to jump on board? For me, because I don't understand certain therapies, it would be unethical and irresponsible to jump on that band wagon. I'm mixing my metaphors, sorry. Example: CST. I have had crash course training with this treatment. I can feel the "pulse" as it travels and I can, usually, detect areas of past trauma and immediate concerns. However, I do not practice CST, because it baffles me. Guided Imagery: I excelled at this in my training. Taking someone out of their skin into a place of peace and security..... sounds great, gives me the willies. :) I think that the client/therapist interaction is not going to be able to be scientifically dissected. There are too many unknowns. But I am open to hearing about other studies/cases that have been proven or disproved. In a previous post Chris said to me that we don't have to "go to war" on these issues. I'm simply interested in the workings of things. Like anatomy... we figure things out by picking them apart! :)
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on
-
I think that the client/therapist interaction is not going to be able to be scientifically dissected. There are too many unknowns.
I somewhat agree. I think science can make progress on it, but that it is something that is not able to be 'pinned down' in the way scientists would like.
But I am open to hearing about other studies/cases that have been proven or disproved. In a previous post Chris said to me that we don't have to "go to war" on these issues. I'm simply interested in the workings of things. Like anatomy... we figure things out by picking them apart! :)
Well said.
You know that last statement makes you a reductionist, right? ;)
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
A question for you Vlad - do you think we can ever really avoid reductionism as we are trying to understand the way something works
No, reductionism can't be avoided.
To me the whole WSR/quantitative research types are kinda/sorta like black box testing compared to white box testing in the software world. With black box, you don't know the internal intricacies, you just know (or are testing) the outcomes and a lot of subsystems can come come into play.
With white box testing, you're getting into the details/paths of what is actually going on.
In my humble-and-still-learning view BOTH are needed.
Actually, maybe good studies in WSR will/are probably harder to implement than an RCT? I dunno. Like I said - still learning.
WSR replicates the real world scenario - that's it's power, but I will still want to know whether the placebo effect comes into play - that's where the quantitative has it's power.
The above is all so wonderfull when it supports what intuition and hands already know, but what if , the "science" directly attacks what for you is a cheerished truth !
For me my mistake was to look beyond the articles and go to the web sites frequented by the persons involved. This was a highly regrettable experience as I found some of what was there disturbing enough to shutdown my inquisitive openess as I feared a contamination that I may take into my treatment room. ( sad but true ).
That is sad, Stephen.
I don't view science as something that attacks anything.
Also "Research" and "Science" are a bit different too, though, right?
My view of research is probably influenced a lot by my background. I used to work in telecommunications. The only reason why we're all sitting at our desks communicating over this brilliant thing called the internet (thank you Al Gore)(that was a joke) is because of research and development in telecommunications.
Now, people will probably be doing some virtual farting in my general direction right now since they'll be saying "She's a geek. She ain't one of us" - that isn't true. And yes, computers aren't anything like the human body, that's right. But I do know that intuition is important. Client/therapist relationship is important. Customization of sessions for our clients is important. And there's one thing that I know for sure is that RESEARCH IS IMPORTANT.
Taking it a bit futher - GOOD,WELL RUN research is important.
In the squirrel world we view research as "lets DO blah-bleeh-blah to FIND OUT if blum-bleeh-blum happens"
But a lot of crap research is out there where the point of it is "lets DO blah-bleeh-blah to PROVE blum-bleeh-blum because we like it" and then there's all this crap methology and crap analysis and just crap that goes into PROVING something that just isn't true.
See that second one? It irks my mellow calmness to the nth degree.
Finding out whether the we're looking at a case of the first one or the second is pretty important. I was never taught how to distinguish between the two. I'm just trying to figure it out.
This thread got really interesting when Robin joined it since she's into research and is introducing a whole new ball game on the best way to find out stuff. If WSR is the future then the industry as a whole needs to make sure that it's run well. Finding out if research is "done well" isn't an easy thing to do (at least it's not for me). I am 100% confident that if people like Robin are involved in it, we're doing good. No worries.
Quantitative/Qualitaitve/WSR - it's all in a big lovely pie of (hopefully well run) research and pies are good.
As for the ship references. Och man, we're not on separate ships, are we? NCC-1701 is our our bough, right?
Marissa - if you get a case of something giving you the willies, TDT helps with that a lot.
Chris - 35,000 braincells a day? I think I killed off about 115,312 one day when I watched "The Real Housewives of Atlanta" marathon - T.V. is dangerous.
-
-
Marrisa,
I thought you weren't into energy work cause I looked at the groups to which you belonged, they tend to give big clues as to where you are as a therapist.
As ever, you give a beautiful explaination, that is a thoughtfull measurement, of your journey so far as an MT, one that probably mirrors many on this site.
I only sought to give fair warning to those MTs looking beyond that initial excitement of linking their own findings to the article first read.
Picking things apart in the name of science/anatomy is exactley where, we have been getting it v wrong.
Turns out we should have been looking at the whole/bigger picture ....turns out we should have been looking at the way the fascia layers effect everything.
Marissa Macias said:Stephen- this is where it gets interesting! I am "open" to many different things, whether they be powered by science or by woo-woo. I do have to state though that I do not practice any woo-woo. :) Not because I don't believe that it is out there or that it doesn't work for others. Simply for the fact that I don't understand it. As previously stated, if it comes to fruition that a specific therapy is the end all cure all, are we all going to jump on board? For me, because I don't understand certain therapies, it would be unethical and irresponsible to jump on that band wagon. I'm mixing my metaphors, sorry. Example: CST. I have had crash course training with this treatment. I can feel the "pulse" as it travels and I can, usually, detect areas of past trauma and immediate concerns. However, I do not practice CST, because it baffles me. Guided Imagery: I excelled at this in my training. Taking someone out of their skin into a place of peace and security..... sounds great, gives me the willies. :) I think that the client/therapist interaction is not going to be able to be scientifically dissected. There are too many unknowns. But I am open to hearing about other studies/cases that have been proven or disproved. In a previous post Chris said to me that we don't have to "go to war" on these issues. I'm simply interested in the workings of things. Like anatomy... we figure things out by picking them apart! :)
-
-
Picking things apart in the name of science/anatomy is exactley where, we have been getting it v wrong.
Turns out we should have been looking at the whole/bigger picture ....turns out we should have been looking at the way the fascia layers effect everything.
How do you think fascia was discovered?
-
-
Vlad said:42
"It is no coincidence that in no known language does the phrase 'As pretty as an Airport' appear." -D.A.
-
Permalink Reply by Robin Byler Thomas on
-
May nose be fluff, and fluff be nose; carrots be upon thy cheese! Fear not the evil nook and cranny that burns thy house and quivering mouse to the ground, for the squinting moose shall rid thy meeps and cookies!
Christopher A. Moyer said:Vlad said:42
"It is no coincidence that in no known language does the phrase 'As pretty as an Airport' appear." -D.A.
-
-
596f75206c69766520616e64206c6561726e2e2020417420616e7920726174652c20796f75206c697665
(hex - and there's a bug in it - good job I changed careers)
(Robin - I'm totally confused as to what a "meep" is since urban dictionary gives a strange possible meaning for it, but I think I want to hang on to mine )
-
-
If you must.
Check Roismhaire's e-mail will you, advise is needed.
Vlad said:596f75206c69766520616e64206c6561726e2e2020417420616e7920726174652c20796f75206c697665
(hex - and there's a bug in it - good job I changed careers)
(Robin - I'm totally confused as to what a "meep" is since urban dictionary gives a strange possible meaning for it, but I think I want to hang on to mine )
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
