Emotional Distress, Pain Catastrophizing and Expectancies in Patients with Low Back Pain
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Low back pain (LBP) is important aspect of vertebral pathology. Due to its medical, social and financial importance, acute and chronic LBP is important concern of the medical world. Pain catastrophizing and response expectancies are among the most robust psychological predictors of pain outcomes. Pain has been studied in relationship with pain catastrophizing on one hand, and in relationship with emotional distress, and with response expectancies on the other hand. Fewer studies have looked at relationships with hope. The current study was designed to investigate all these variables in one research. We assessed 46 patients (aged 27 to 84, 17 men and 29 women) with LBP to see the relevance of and relations between pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), emotional distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), pain outcomes (SF-McGill Pain Questionnaire) and expectancies and hopes for pain relief after treatment. Our results show that pain catastrophizing totally mediates the relationship between pain and emotional distress and is related to expectancies. Chronic pain patients have more negative expectancies and hopes for pain relief after treatment as compared to acute pain patients. Implications for research and treatment are discussed. Keywords: low back pain, pain catastophizing, emotional distress, secondary prevention Low back-pain (LBP) is important aspect of vertebral pathology, accounting for approximately 12-30% of European population morbidity; according to recent studies, its prevalence could be as high as 60-80% among the adult population in the United States and Europe (DeLisa, 2005). Also, it has been established that LBP is the second most frequent cause of disability in the adult population (over 45 years of age) in Europe, and the third cause in the United States. In the US, annual costs required by investigations, treatment, and decreased job performance raise up to the impressive amount of 50 billion dollars (DeLisa, 2005). About 80-90% of the money spent on patients suffering from LBP is accounted for by the treatment costs of the 10% that develop chronic LBP. Clinical Guidelines concerning the management of LBP recommend, besides conservative medication therapy, physiokinetotherapy for patients with unfavorable evolution, and cognitive-behavioral therapy for those with sub-acute and chronic pain (Barclay, 2007). Acute pain plays important role in signaling potential injury or damage to muscles, tissue or nerves. Chronic pain however, serves no immediate purpose (Winterowd, Beck, & Gruener, 2003), and it poses a significantly greater psychological strain on the patient and is perhaps one of the most challenging problems faced by healthcare consumers as well as health care practitioners and providers. It is a problem of enormous magnitude in society, yet there is overwhelming evidence that it is inadequately treated (for details see Winterowd Beck, & Gruener, 2003). There are two important psychological factors that have proved to be of predictive value in pain outcomes research: pain catastrophizing and response expectancies. Catastrophizing is defined as an exaggerated negative mental set brought to bear during actual or anticipated painful experience (Sullivan et al., 2001). Pain catastrophizing is a multidimensional construct comprising elements of rumination (I can't stop thinking about how much it hurts), magnification (I worry that something serious may happen), and helplessness (There is nothing I can do to reduce the intensity of the pain). There is abundance of data in the field of pain indicating that catastrophizing plays important role in producing pain related outcomes (e.g., pain intensity, pain related disability) in both healthy (e.g., France et al, 2002., Seminowicz & Davis, 2006) or clinical populations (e.g., Peters, Vlayen, & Weber, 2005; Sullivan, Lynch, & Clarck, 2005; Pavlin, Sullivan, Freund, & Roesen, 2005). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».