The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society
-
The widely used Adult Responses to Children's Symptoms measures parental responses to child symptom complaints among youth aged 7 to 18 years with recurrent/chronic pain. Given developmental differences between children and adolescents and the impact of developmental stage on parenting, the factorial validity of the parent-report version of the Adult Responses to Children's Symptoms with a pain-specific stem was examined separately in 743 parents of 281 children (7-11 years) and 462 adolescents (12-18 years) with chronic pain or pain-related chronic illness. Factor structures of the Adult Responses to Children's Symptoms beyond the original 3-factor model were also examined. Exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation was conducted on a randomly chosen half of the sample of children and adolescents as well as the 2 groups combined to assess underlying factor structure. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the other randomly chosen half of the sample to cross-validate factor structure revealed by exploratory factor analyses and compare it to other model variants. Poor loading and high cross-loading items were removed. A 4-factor model (Protect, Minimize, Monitor, and Distract) for children and the combined (child and adolescent) sample and a 5-factor model (Protect, Minimize, Monitor, Distract, and Solicitousness) for adolescents was superior to the 3-factor model proposed in previous literature. Future research should examine the validity of derived subscales and developmental differences in their relationships with parent and child functioning. ⋯ This article examined developmental differences in the structure of a widely used measure of caregiver responses to chronic pain or pain-related chronic illness in youth. Results suggest that revised structures that differ across developmental groups can be used with youth with a range of clinical pain-related conditions.
-
Comparative Study
Subgrouping for patients with low back pain: a multidimensional approach incorporating cluster analysis and the STarT Back Screening Tool.
Early screening for psychological distress has been suggested to improve patient management for individuals experiencing low back pain. This study compared 2 approaches to psychological screening (ie, multidimensional and unidimensional) so that preliminary recommendations on which approach may be appropriate for use in clinical settings other than primary care could be provided. Specifically, this study investigated aspects of the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT): 1) discriminant validity by evaluating its relationship with unidimensional psychological measures and 2) construct validity by evaluating how SBT risk categories compared to empirically derived subgroups using unidimensional psychological and disability measures. Patients (N = 146) receiving physical therapy for LBP were administered the SBT and a battery of unidimensional psychological measures at initial evaluation. Clinical measures consisted of pain intensity and self-reported disability. Several SBT risk-dependent relationships (ie, SBT low < medium < high risk) were identified for unidimensional psychological measure scores, with depressive symptom scores associated with the strongest influence on SBT risk categorization. Empirically derived subgroups indicated that there was no evidence of distinctive patterns among psychological or disability measures other than high or low profiles; therefore, 2 groups may provide a clearer representation of the level of pain-associated psychological distress, maladaptive coping, and disability in this setting compared with 3 groups as suggested when using the SBT in primary care settings. ⋯ This study suggests that the SBT can replace administering several unidimensional psychological measures as a first-line screening measure for psychological distress. However, clinicians need to be aware of the potential for misclassification with SBT results when compared to unidimensional measures. This study also suggests that a modified SBT risk stratification scheme based on empirically derived subgroups could potentially assist in identifying elevated levels of pain-associated psychological distress, maladaptive coping, and disability in practice settings outside of primary care. Patients identified with elevated levels of pain-associated distress and maladaptive coping may be indicated for additional assessment using construct-specific questionnaires.
-
Peer-reviewed publications of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the primary means of disseminating research findings. "Spin" in RCT publications is misrepresentation of statistically nonsignificant research findings to suggest treatment benefit. Spin can influence the way readers interpret clinical trials and use the information to make decisions about treatments and medical policies. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency with which 4 types of spin were used in publications of analgesic RCTs with nonsignificant primary analyses in 6 major pain journals. In the 76 articles included in our sample, 28% of the abstracts and 29% of the main texts emphasized secondary analyses with P values <.05; 22% of abstracts and 29% of texts emphasized treatment benefit based on nonsignificant primary results; 14% of abstracts and 18% of texts emphasized within-group improvements over time, rather than primary between-group comparisons; and 13% of abstracts and 10% of texts interpreted a nonsignificant difference between groups in a superiority study as comparable effectiveness. When considering the article conclusion sections, 21% did not mention the nonsignificant primary result, 22% were presented with no uncertainty or qualification, 30% did not acknowledge that future research was required, and 8% recommended the intervention for clinical use. ⋯ This article identifies relatively frequent "spin" in analgesic RCTs. These findings highlight a need for authors, reviewers, and editors to be more cognizant of how analgesic RCT results are presented and attempt to minimize spin in future clinical trial publications.
-
Although there is a significant association between preexisting depression and later onset of chronic headache, the extent to which other preexisting mental disorders are associated with subsequent onset of headache in the general population is not known. Also unknown is the extent to which these associations vary by gender or by life course. We report global data from the WHO's World Mental Health surveys (n = 52,095), in which, by means of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-3.0, 16 mental disorders from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, were retrospectively assessed in terms of lifetime prevalence and age of onset. Frequent or severe headaches were assessed using self-reports. After adjustment for covariates, survival models showed a moderate but consistent association between preexisting mood (odds ratios [ORs] = 1.3-1.4), anxiety (ORs = 1.2-1.7), and impulse-control disorders (ORs = 1.7-1.9) and the subsequent onset of headache. We also found a dose-response relationship between the number of preexisting mental disorders and subsequent headache onset (OR ranging from 1.9 for 1 preexisting mental disorder to 3.4 for ≥5 preexisting mental disorders). Our findings suggest a consistent and pervasive relationship between a wide range of preexisting mental disorders and the subsequent onset of headaches. This highlights the importance of assessing a broad range of mental disorders, not just depression, as specific risk factors for the subsequent onset of frequent or severe headaches. ⋯ This study shows that there is a temporal association between a broad range of preexisting mental disorders and the subsequent onset of severe or frequent headaches in general population samples across the world.
-
Spatial summation of pain is well accepted but surprisingly understudied. Area-based summation refers to the increase in pain evoked by increasing the area of stimulation. Distance-based summation refers to the increase in pain evoked by increasing the distance between multiple stimuli. Although transcutaneous electrical stimulation has several advantages over other experimental pain paradigms, whether or not this modality evokes spatial summation remains unknown. We aimed to answer this question in order to lay the foundation for critical studies of spatial summation. Twenty-five healthy participants received stimuli on their forearm, and the primary outcome, pain intensity, was compared across 5 spatial configurations-1 with a single stimulus and 4 paired configurations at 0-, 5-, 10-, and 20-cm separations. Importantly, the potential confounder of a proximal-distal gradient in nociceptive sensitivity was removed in this study. Pain intensity was higher in response to the paired stimuli than in response to the single stimulus (P < .001), and the paired stimuli separated by 5, 10 and 20 cm, evoked greater pain than stimuli at a separation of 0 cm (P < .001), thus confirming both area- and distance-based summation, respectively. We conclude that transcutaneous electrical stimulation is appropriate for future investigations of spatial summation. ⋯ Distance-based summation is likely implicated in some clinical pain. However, current understanding for spatial summation is limited. This study demonstrates that transcutaneous electrical stimulation is safe, feasible, and valid for future investigations of spatial summation and will allow critical questions to be answered.