POS1450-PARE TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCES AND DEFENSIVE MECHANISMS: EXAMINING THE INFLUENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS IN WOMEN WITH FIBROMYALGIA AND CHRONIC PAIN SYNDROMES IN COMORBIDITY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Fibromyalgia (FM) patients frequently experience multiple chronic pain (CP) comorbidities, including tension-type or migraine headache, irritable bowel syndrome, and low back pain. FM and all these conditions have been included among chronic nociplastic syndromes [1]. The term “nociplastic pain” (NP) describes pain that results from altered function of pain-related sensory pathways in the central nervous system (CNS) and peripheral nervous system, resulting in hypersensitivity to pain. Central sensitization (CS) is one of the possible mechanisms underlying NP. CS is described as an “increased responsiveness of CNS nociceptive neurons to normal or subthreshold afferent inputs” [2]. NP is characteristic of multiple clinical conditions that share common neurophysiological mechanisms and opens a new framework for understanding the co-occurrence of different chronic disorders and the role of related psychological factors. Among psychological factors, the literature highlights the role of: temperamental and personality traits, traumatic experiences, and defense mechanisms (DM; automatic processes that blunt the effects of external and internal reality and regulate emotional response). However, these variables are still understudied. Objectives: To investigate whether FM and FM with different CP conditions show differences regarding childhood traumatic experiences and DM. Methods: 528 women (n=201 FM; n=327 FM with comorbidities) participated and completed a self-administered online protocol consisting of the Traumatic Experience Checklist (TEC [3]), Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (DMRS [4]), and socio-anamnestic information. Data collection took place between April and December 2023. A MANCOVA general linear model was run to test for differences in TEC and DMRS scores covaried for age values, as age was significantly different between groups. Results: Data analysis shows significant differences in the TEC emotional abuse scale (F=3.976; df=2; p=.006) and the total score (F=2.938; df=2; p=.019) with FM with comorbidities group reporting higher scores. About DMRS the groups differ only in the scale of immature defenses (F=6.648; df=2; p=.039), with the FM group with comorbidities scoring higher. Conclusion: Greater childhood emotional abuse and immature DM seem to connote the group of FM with comorbidities. Thus, they would more frequently use DM as catastrophizing, devaluation, refusal of help, and acting out. It can be hypothesized that greater traumatic events exposure may have hindered the development of more mature DM. This could be a risk factor for both the development and management of difficult events, such as the onset of a complex and disabling disease like FM, especially when associated with other CP syndromes. Understanding the complex connection between CP and mental health therefore seems important. Clinicians should consider psychological variables as they may contribute to the onset and exacerbation of CP symptoms. Including these dimensions in the clinical assessment of patients with CP could allow for the creation of individualized interventions and improve quality of life. REFERENCES: [1] Fitzcharles MA, Cohen SP, Clauw DJ, Littlejohn G, Usui C, Häuser W. Nociplastic pain: towards an understanding of prevalent pain conditions. The Lancet. 2021 May 29;397(10289):2098–110. [2] Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: Implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. PAIN. 2011 Mar 1;152(3, Supplement):S2–15. [3] Nijenhuis ERS, Van der Hart O, Kruger K. The psychometric characteristics of the Traumatic Experiences Checklist (TEC): First findings among psychiatric outpatients. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2002;9(3):200–10. [4] Di Giuseppe M, Perry JC, Lucchesi M, Michelini M, Vitiello S, Piantanida A, et al. Preliminary Reliability and Validity of the DMRS-SR-30, a Novel Self-Report Measure Based on the Defense Mechanisms Rating Scales. Front Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 1;11:870. Acknowledgements: NIL. Disclosure of Interests: None declared.
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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 ».