Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"If you want to know something about man, don't study the human, don't study psychology, study psychologization...Jan De Vos starts where other critiques on psychology end, putting forward a breathtaking simple but most revealing argument: psychology is psychologization.This fresh and pioneering approach asks what it means to become the psychologist of one's own life. If something is not working in our education, in our marriage, in our work and in society in general we turn to the psy-sciences. But is the latter's paradigm precisely not relying on feeding psychological theories into the field of research and action?Jan De Vos traces psychologization back to the Enlightenment and then proceeds to late-modernity. Engaging with seminal thinkers such as La Mettrie, Husserl, Lasch and Agamben, he meanwhile teases out the possibilities and the limits of using psychoanalytic theory as a critical tool.Whatever level of expertise they possess, readers working in or simply interested in psychology, social psychology or cultural studies will find something of value here. If you have once felt some uneasiness or discontent in current psychologized culture, this book offers challenging and thought-provoking insights\"-- Provided by publisher.

Today more than ever, our understanding of ourselves, others and the world around us is described in psychological terms. Psychologists deeply influence our society, and psychological-discourse has invaded companies, advertising, culture, politics, and even our social and family life. Moreover, psychologisation has become a global process, applied to situations such as torture, reality TV and famine. This book analyses this 'overflow of psychology' in the three main areas of science, culture and politics. The concept of psychologisation has become crucial to current debates in critical psychology. De Vos combines these debates with insights from the fields of critical theory, philosophy and ideology critique, to present the first book-length argument that seriously considers the concept of psychologisation in these times of globalisation. The book contains numerous real-world examples making it an accessible and engaging analysis that should be of interest to researchers, postgraduates and undergraduate students of psychology and philosophy.

ObjectiveTo provide a consistently updated overview of the comparative effectiveness of treatments for Achilles tendinopathy.DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMultiple databases including grey literature sources were searched up to February 2019.Study eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials examining the effectiveness of any treatment in patients with both insertional and/or midportion Achilles tendinopathy. We excluded trials with 10 or fewer participants per treatment arm or trials investigating tendon ruptures.Data extraction and synthesisReviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to appraise the certainty of evidence.Primary outcome measureThe validated patient-reported Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles questionnaire.Results29 trials investigating 42 different treatments were included. 22 trials (76%) were at high risk of bias and 7 (24%) had some concerns. Most trials included patients with midportion tendinopathy (86%). Any treatment class seemed superior to wait-and-see for midportion Achilles tendinopathy at 3 months (very low to low certainty of evidence). At 12 months, exercise therapy, exercise+injection therapy and exercise+night splint therapy were all comparable with injection therapy for midportion tendinopathy (very low to low certainty). No network meta-analysis could be performed for insertional Achilles tendinopathy.Summary/conclusionIn our living network meta-analysis no trials were at low risk of bias and there was large uncertainty in the comparative estimates. For midportion Achilles tendinopathy, wait-and-see is not recommended as all active treatments seemed superior at 3-month follow-up. There seems to be no clinically relevant difference in effectiveness between different active treatments at either 3-month or 12-month follow-up. As exercise therapy is easy to prescribe, can be of low cost and has few harms, clinicians could consider starting treatment with a calf-muscle exercise programme.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018086467.

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of progressive tendon-loading exercises (PTLE) with eccentric exercise therapy (EET) in patients with patellar tendinopathy (PT).MethodsIn a stratified, investigator-blinded, block-randomised trial, 76 patients with clinically diagnosed and ultrasound-confirmed PT were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either PTLE or EET. The primary end point was clinical outcome after 24 weeks following an intention-to-treat analysis, as assessed with the validated Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment for patellar tendons (VISA-P) questionnaire measuring pain, function and ability to play sports. Secondary outcomes included the return to sports rate, subjective patient satisfaction and exercise adherence.ResultsPatients were randomised between January 2017 and July 2019. The intention-to-treat population (mean age, 24 years, SD 4); 58 (76%) male) consisted of patients with mostly chronic PT (median symptom duration 2 years). Most patients (82%) underwent prior treatment for PT but failed to recover fully. 38 patients were randomised to the PTLE group and 38 patients to the EET group. The improvement in VISA-P score was significantly better for PTLE than for EET after 24 weeks (28 vs 18 points, adjusted mean between-group difference, 9 (95% CI 1 to 16); p=0.023). There was a trend towards a higher return to sports rate in the PTLE group (43% vs 27%, p=0.13). No significant between-group difference was found for subjective patient satisfaction (81% vs 83%, p=0.54) and exercise adherence between the PTLE group and EET group after 24 weeks (40% vs 49%, p=0.33).ConclusionsIn patients with PT, PTLE resulted in a significantly better clinical outcome after 24 weeks than EET. PTLE are superior to EET and are therefore recommended as initial conservative treatment for PT.

BackgroundAchilles tendinopathy is a common problem, but its exact aetiology remains unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between potential clinical risk factors and Achilles tendinopathy.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesThe databases Embase, MEDLINE Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched up to February 2018.Eligibility criteriaTo answer our research question, cohort studies investigating risk factors for Achilles tendinopathy in humans were included. We restricted our search to potential clinical risk factors (imaging studies were excluded).ResultsWe included 10 cohort studies, all with a high risk of bias, from 5111 publications identified. There is limited evidence for nine risk factors: (1) prior lower limb tendinopathy or fracture, (2) use of ofloxacin (quinolone) antibiotics, (3) an increased time between heart transplantation and initiation of quinolone treatment for infectious disease, (4) moderate alcohol use, (5) training during cold weather, (6) decreased isokinetic plantar flexor strength, (7) abnormal gait pattern with decreased forward progression of propulsion, (8) more lateral foot roll-over at the forefoot flat phase and (9) creatinine clearance of <60 mL/min in heart transplant patients. Twenty-six other putative risk factors were not associated with Achilles tendinopathy, including being overweight, static foot posture and physical activity level.ConclusionFrom an ocean of studies with high levels of bias, we extracted nine clinical risk factors that may increase a person’s risk of Achilles tendinopathy. Clinicians may consider ofloxacin use, alcohol consumption and a reduced plantar flexor strength as modifiable risk factors when treating patients with Achilles tendinopathy.Trial registration numberCRD42017053258.

ObjectiveTo provide a comprehensive, evidence-based overview of the risk factors, prevention, diagnosis, imaging, treatment and prognosis for Achilles tendinopathy. To make clinical recommendations for healthcare practitioners and patients.DesignComprehensive multidisciplinary guideline process funded by the Quality Foundation of the Dutch Federation of Medical Specialists. This process included a development, commentary and authorisation phase. Patients participated in every phase.Data sourcesMultiple databases and existing guidelines were searched up to May 2019. Information from patients, healthcare providers and other stakeholders were obtained using a digital questionnaire, focus group interview and invitational conference.Study eligibility criteriaStudies on both insertional and/or midportion Achilles tendinopathy were eligible. Specific eligibility criteria were described per module.Data extraction and synthesisTo appraise the certainty of evidence, reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method, where applicable. Important considerations were: patient values and preferences, costs, acceptability of other stakeholders and feasibility of implementation. Recommendations were made based on the results of the evidence from the literature and the considerations.Primary outcome measureThe primary and secondary outcome measures were defined per module and defined based on the input of patients obtained in collaboration with the Netherlands Patient Federation and healthcare providers from different professions.ResultsSix specific modules were completed: risk factors and primary prevention, diagnosis, imaging, treatment prognosis and secondary prevention for Achilles tendinopathy.Summary/conclusionOur Dutch multidisciplinary guideline on Achilles tendinopathy provides six modules developed according to the standards of the Dutch Federation of Medical Specialists. Evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice are given for risk factors, prevention, diagnosis, imaging, treatment and prognosis. This guideline can assist healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice.

Correspondence to Dr Alex Scott, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canada; ascott@mail.ubc.ca Background Persistent tendon pain that impairs function has inconsistent medical terms that can influence choice of treatment.1 When a person is told they have tendinopathy by clinician A or tendinitis by clinician B, they might feel confused or be alarmed at receiving what they might perceive as two different diagnoses. The authors of this paper, a group of international clinical and research experts from different disciplines, aimed to achieve a consensus in terminology for persistent tendon disorders. The term ‘rotator cuff tendinopathy’ was on our list of options but the group did not achieve consensus on that term as being ideal for shoulder pain and loss of function because a proportion of participants felt that the diagnosis could not be made clinically due to the variety of nociceptive structures near to the rotator cuff tendons. With respect to this, the Groningen statement is consistent with previous Delphi studies and clinical guidelines which include tendinopathy as part of a spectrum of subacromial or rotator-cuff-related shoulder pain and injury.6–8 Those guidelines recommend the terms subacromial pain (or impingement) syndrome for patients with painful shoulder tendons and loss of function; the term rotator-cuff-related shoulder pain has also been proposed.8 Future work Imaging can provide additional information which can assist with diagnosis.

BackgroundThe absence of any agreed-upon tendon health-related domains hampers advances in clinical tendinopathy research. This void means that researchers report a very wide range of outcome measures inconsistently. As a result, substantial synthesis/meta-analysis of tendon research findings is almost futile despite researchers publishing busily. We aimed to determine options for, and then define, core health-related domains for tendinopathy.MethodsWe conducted a Delphi study of healthcare professionals (HCP) and patients in a three-stage process. In stage 1, we extracted candidate domains from clinical trial reports and developed an online survey. Survey items took the form: ‘The ‘candidate domain’ is important enough to be included as a core health-related domain of tendinopathy’; response options were: agree, disagree, or unsure. In stage 2, we administered the online survey and reported the findings. Stage 3 consisted of discussions of the findings of the survey at the ICON (International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus) meeting. We set 70% participant agreement as the level required for a domain to be considered ‘core’; similarly, 70% agreement was required for a domain to be relegated to ‘not core’ (see Results next).ResultsTwenty-eight HCP (92% of whom had >10 years of tendinopathy experience, 71% consulted >10 cases per month) and 32 patients completed the online survey. Fifteen HCP and two patients attended the consensus meeting. Of an original set of 24 candidate domains, the ICON group deemed nine domains to be core. These were: (1) patient rating of condition, (2) participation in life activities (day to day, work, sport), (3) pain on activity/loading, (4) function, (5) psychological factors, (6) physical function capacity, (7) disability, (8) quality of life and (9) pain over a specified time. Two of these (2, 6) were an amalgamation of five candidate domains. We agreed that seven other candidate domains were not core domains: range of motion, pain on clinician applied test, clinical examination, palpation, drop out, sensory modality pain and pain without other specification. We were undecided on the other five candidate domains of physical activity, structure, medication use, adverse effects and economic impact.ConclusionNine core domains for tendon research should guide reporting of outcomes in clinical trials. Further research should determine the best outcome measures for each specific tendinopathy (ie, core outcome sets).