Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge

Comment

Comment by Mike Hinkle on November 13, 2009 at 10:31pm

So if we keep this discussion inside this discussion, the other groups would probably appreciate it!

Back to the MTBOK:
Do you think entry level therapists need to know about insurance reimbursement? Why or why not?

Comment by Carl W. Brown on November 13, 2009 at 6:56pm

Bert, you suggested that the BOK start with basic massage. I lot of people do non-therapeutic massage so why are we discussing therapeutic aspects of massage?

Besides you neck pain taxonomy describe what could be done but not how. Within the taxonomy you could apply different modalities with different sets of KSAs. Each modalities might include different parts of the taxonomy with different techniques. The may use holding and if so in different ways likewise ROM and stretching. They may or may not include trigger points. If the bottom line question is can you treat stiff necks the KSAs can be all over the map and the answer is still yes.

Comment by Carl W. Brown on November 13, 2009 at 6:43pm

Bert. “How can you call something Wholistic if you eliminate 'scientific'.” It is a common misconception of the meaning of Wholistic. In science we take an instance and classify it into a group with like properties and from that we can infer that specific sets of rules apply so that we can take observations and extrapolate things that we cannot measure. For example if I have a steel I beam and I know the dimensions and type of steel I can infer the breaking point of the beam without breaking it. By classifying the instance into groups with know behaviors we can learn about the instances and the more groups that it fit into the more we know about. Wholistic views hold that the process in classifying the instance distorts our perception of it even if we put something into a lot of classifications you cannot reconstruct a full understanding of it. By doing rational assessments of something you be reason that you rational understanding is limited you get a distortion of the whole being.

“Scientific is not synonymous with atomistic or atomic.” Science is atomistic because it breaks things down to understand them. A doctor does not treat the patient but his analysis of the symptoms, tests, etc. Alternative medicine is also atomistic but may not be scientific. An acupuncturist treat patients based on what he observes and the tests he does. Again he treats the measurements not the person.

Wholistic works by knowing that if you try to rationally analyze the person you will distort what you perceive by extra-rational means. Wholistic approaches are useful because the person is too complex to fully understand using reason.

For a long time I believed in science as a religion and now understand that it is a tool. No I operate holistically as a primary means to help people but switch as needed to science when appropriate know that I can do both but not at the same time or intermix them because the scientific observations destroy my intuitive perceptions.

You can take right-brained perception and shift them to left-brained analysis. But you lose in the translation and cannot go from left to right.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on November 13, 2009 at 4:30pm

Hi Bert,

Just got back from visiting Mom in SC. Read your work and you are on point.

Comment by Christopher A. Moyer on November 13, 2009 at 3:07pm

I agree with Bert that "scientific (atomistic)" vs. "Wholistic" is a false dichotomy.

Scientific is not synonymous with atomistic or atomic.

Neither scientific nor atomistic is the opposite of (w)holistic.

Further, scientific procedures can be conducted at various levels, from the very small (atomic) to the very large (an entire system). It is possible to run into difficulty when shifting from one level to the other, if a person is careless, but this probably does not happen as often as some folks believe.

-CM

Comment by Bert Davich on November 13, 2009 at 2:42pm

And Carl, this line in your comment:
"Once you start to do therapeutic work you have to decide if you are going scientific (atomistic) or Wholistic"

is a false dilemma and not relevant in any way to a basic BOK for touch therapy or energy work. Furthermore, the term "Wholistic" carries the implication (if not definition) of inclusive. How can you call something Wholistic if you eliminate 'scientific'. Nor does scientific carry the implication of exclusion of wholistic.

Comment by Bert Davich on November 13, 2009 at 2:35pm

Carl,
Regarding your comment "I fail se see how it crosses the modality barrier. It proscribes meridians and energy work, why?" I addressed that in the original comment when I stated 2 things that needed to be addressed. Additionally, this does not just cross the 'modality barrier' it eliminates it altogether.

Lastly regarding your comment that medical massage is just one modality, read the abstract excerpt below:
"Four categories described the principal goal of treatment (i.e., relaxation massage, clinical massage, movement re-education and energy work"

And again, I stated this was a starting point, not a completed operation.

Comment by Bert Davich on November 13, 2009 at 2:23pm

Carl, I think you are missing the point. Although the study was focused on for musculoskeletal pain in the neck was not the focus of what I was saying. The study simply used that as a place to begin to address the taxonomy. Many modalities use the same or similar technique but have a different name for it.

I do not suggest a list of KSA's for multiple modalities.

I do advocate a list of TREATMENTS used in massage therapy that will cover what an entry level therapist should be able to perform without regard to ANY modality.

Mike was right when he said we needed something that would cover us all. First order of business is entry level.

What we do is essentially considered touch therapy by the laws of most jurisdictions, therefore we need to deal with that comprehensively.

If you want to create a set of KSA'a for an 'advanced certification' for a particular modality you can do that as has been done already by some modalities who certify for themselves. Those however do not belong in a BOK that defines entry level therapists. If a BOK had to be developed for each modality out there we could go to school for a hundred years and still not be 'qualified' to practice something or other.

Do you want more educational requirements or less?

BELOW IS THE ABSTRACT FOR ANYONE INTERESTED
FULL ARTICLE: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/6/24

One of the challenges in conducting research in the field of massage and bodywork is the lack of consistent terminology for describing the treatments given by massage therapists. The objective of this study was to develop a taxonomy to describe what massage therapists actually do when giving a massage to patients with musculoskeletal pain.
Methods

After conducting a review of the massage treatment literature for musculoskeletal pain, a list of candidate techniques was generated for possible inclusion in the taxonomy. This list was modified after discussions with a senior massage therapist educator and seven experienced massage therapists participating in a study of massage for neck pain.
Results

The taxonomy was conceptualized as a three level classification system, principal goals of treatment, styles, and techniques. Four categories described the principal goal of treatment (i.e., relaxation massage, clinical massage, movement re-education and energy work). Each principal goal of treatment could be met using a number of different styles, with each style consisting of a number of specific techniques. A total of 36 distinct techniques were identified and described, many of which could be included in multiple styles.
Conclusion

A new classification system is presented whereby practitioners using different styles of massage can describe the techniques they employ using consistent terminology. This system could help facilitate standardized reporting of massage interventions.
Background

Massage therapy, the manual manipulation of soft body tissues to enhance health and well-being, is one of the oldest forms of medicine known to mankind and has been practiced worldwide since ancient times [1]. Today, more than 80 different forms of massage have been identified, many developed in the last 30 years. Although massage is used for a variety of specific reasons (e.g., relaxation, comfort at the end of life, relieving pain, enhancing athletic performance), it is undertaken with the general goal of helping the body achieve or increase health and well-being. Touch given with the intention of healing, the common factor in all forms of massage, is believed not only to have beneficial effects on tissue, body fluids and other systems of the body but also to communicate caring with another human being [2,3]. Massage therapists believe the healing power of touch, common to all of the forms of massage, is a fundamental factor in their success in facilitating their clients' goals for health.

With the burgeoning interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in developed countries has come increased scientific interest in undertaking studies of CAM therapies, including massage. Such studies have revealed a lack of fundamental information on many CAM therapies that has impeded the research process. One of the challenges in conducting research in the field of massage and bodywork is the lack of consistent terminology for describing the treatments practitioners employ. This absence of a common language makes it difficult to ensure that different massage therapists are consistently describing what they are actually doing in treatment sessions and that research protocols for massage studies are reproducible. This polyglot results, at least in part, from the numerous trademarked styles of massage that have been developed and taught by individuals who use specialized language to describe their component techniques (i.e., specific physical manipulations of tissue) and from using techniques developed by other disciplines. Some massage styles with different names may be essentially the same (e.g., Structural Integration and Rolfing®). However, some commonly used styles of massage therapy, including "deep tissue" and neuromuscular therapy, are not consistently defined. For example, some practitioners consider "deep tissue" work to be a synonym for neuromuscular therapy, while others consider "deep tissue" to mean the application of Swedish massage strokes with strong pressure, the application of acupressure, or the use of myofascial release [4]. Finally, the same technique or stroke is often given different names in different styles (e.g., deep effleurage, muscle sculpting, and longitudinal friction are the same), so massage therapists with different training may not realize when they are applying the same technique.

As part of a study of massage for neck pain, we surveyed the massage treatment literature and developed a taxonomy of techniques using neutral language to describe what is being done to the body. In this report, we describe the development of our taxonomy, including the appropriate application of "intent" or purpose, and illustrate its use in a study evaluating massage for neck pain. Finally, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of our taxonomy and provide suggestions for its future refinement.

Comment by Carl W. Brown on November 13, 2009 at 2:01pm

Bert, I fail se see how it crosses the modality barrier. It proscribes meridians and energy work, why? I use an anatomically based modality and have a lost of success with torticollis and other neck problems. I feel for the pain and restrictions both muscular and joint as well as nerve pinching. I will often add detailed intermusclular myofascial release and well as muscle positioning. I don’t do HVLA for cervical alignment but instead do alignment indirectly through muscle tension. I work on the boes themselves and relieve pinched nerves.

Massage is not just medical massage which is only one modality. Much of what I do can’t be explained by science but it works and gives people relief that medicine can’t. Many of us chose not to do medical massage because we feel that there is a need for alternative to PT and medical massage training creates a mental attitude that is destructive to the type of thinking needed for more Wholistic alternatives.

Once you start to do therapeutic work you have to decide if you are going scientific (atomistic) or Wholistic. If you want to start will a common basis you have to exclude therapeutic modalities. My focus is getting the person to use their own healing powers to heal themselves rather than the medical folks who are fixers. It is a very different point of view that goes even to the relationship you have with your clients. In one case the client and their body are in control and the other the therapist controls the treatment.

Comment by Carl W. Brown on November 13, 2009 at 1:11pm

Bert, if you develop a list of KSAs for multiple modalities how to you address the problem of picking what parts of the standard apply? You reference of the taxonomy of treatment for musculoskeletal pain assumes that the person is not training to do relaxation work which a lot of MT do. The other problem is that there are many ways to address the problem of pain and each methodology has is separate BOK that is only consistent within itself. I believe that the best therapists are ones who learn the basics and practice in the real world before that even start training in therapeutic modalities. There are intangible aspects of dealing with the people and touch aspects of this business that give people a better framework to build that therapeutic aspects of what they do.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 51
• Next ›
• Page