Analysis of follow-up data from an outpatient pain management program for refractory chronic pain

Coping Expectancies and Disability across the New ICD-11 Chronic Pain Categories: A Large-Scale Registry Study

BACKGROUND

Recently a new classification system for chronic pain was included in the 11^th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). This study aims to investigate how expectancies of coping, i.e. pain catastrophizing and general self-efficacy, are associated with ICD-11 chronic pain categories in a large pain clinic population. Further, we investigate how coping expectancies are associated with pain-related disability, cross-sectionally and longitudinally across the novel pain classifications.

METHODS

The sample was retrieved from the Oslo University Hospital Pain Registry and included baseline data from 2875 chronic pain patients and 12-months follow up data for 920 patients. Demographic and clinical variables were compared across the ICD-11 chronic pain categories through ANOVA. Multiple regression models were carried out to investigate cross-sectional and longitudinal associations.

RESULTS

With the exception of age, our data showed no significant differences across the ICD-11 chronic pain categories. Coping expectancies were associated with disability at baseline. At 12-months follow up, coping expectancies did not predict pain-related disability when controlling for baseline levels of disability, pain intensity and pain duration. Pain classification (primary versus secondary) did not contribute significantly to the models. Helplessness had the strongest simple relationship to disability, compared with global pain catastrophizing and its additional subscales, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally.

CONCLUSION

Coping expectancies, pain intensity and pain-related disability appear similar across the novel chronic pain classifications, indicating that all pain patients may benefit from targeting these variables. Consistent with recent developments in stress theory, helplessness and self-efficacy were cross-sectionally associated with negative pain outcomes.

Feasibility of Imported Self-Management Program for Elderly People with Chronic Pain: A Single-Arm Confirmatory Trial

INTRODUCTION

Multidisciplinary pain management programs incorporating a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) approach have been reported to be helpful for elderly people with chronic pain. However, it is unclear whether the same program for elderly people with chronic pain would translate to different cultures. This study investigated whether a multidisciplinary program based on that of Nicholas et al. (Pain 154(6):824-835, 2013) in Australia would be effective for elderly people with chronic pain in Japan.

METHODS

Twenty-seven community-dwelling elderly people with chronic pain were enrolled to confirm changes (effect size d = 0.5) in pain disability, which were previously reported by Nicholas et al. The multidisciplinary program consisted of eight sessions (2 sessions a week for 4 weeks). Pain disability was assessed using the Pain Disability Assessment Scale (PDAS) as the primary outcome at the baseline, the beginning and the end of the program, and the 1- and 3-month (final) follow-up. We also assessed the pain severity, catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, and physical function with the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) and the two-step test as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

PDAS, pain catastrophizing, and pain self-efficacy were significantly improved immediately after the program compared with baseline, and these effects were maintained at 3-month follow-up. The effect size (d) for the PDAS score was a medium size (0.54) from baseline to 3-month follow-up. Those who showed improvements in TUG immediately after the program tended to report improved psychometric measures at 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the Japanese multidisciplinary program has a similar effect on pain disability as that reported by Nicholas et al. This finding has important implications for the development of pain services in community-dwelling elderly Japanese.

A systematic review of cross-cultural validation of the pain catastrophizing scale

BACKGROUND

Although it has been suggested that the different cultural and social environments between countries contribute to variations in pain catastrophizing (PC), an international comparison of PC in patients with chronic pain has not yet been reported. Prior to undertaking this comparison, a cross-cultural assessment of the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) was undertaken to explore the different factor structures among each translated version of the PCS.

METHODS

The protocol for this systematic review was prospectively registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews 2018 (CRD 42018086719). Electronic searches were conducted in the following databases: Ovid/Embase, Ovid/MEDLINE and Ovid/PsycINFO, and then 19 articles (16 language versions) were included in this review. Based on the COSMIN check list, we investigated language translation followed by five domains of cross-cultural validation: structural validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and hypotheses testing for construct validity in each study.

RESULTS

We found that (a) there were inconsistent structural models among each translated version, leading to variant subdomain structures for rumination, magnification and helplessness; (b) all languages versions showed sufficient internal consistency when assessing whole items and (c) the correlation coefficients between pain intensities and total scores of the PCS among each sample of chronic pain varied across the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that the total score of the PCS could be compared across each translated version, however, caution is warranted when each subdomain of the PCS is compared between countries.

SIGNIFICANCE

Although the pain catastrophizing scale has been translated into approximately 20 languages, methodological quality during their translation process has not been systematically assessed. We found that all languages versions showed sufficient internal consistency when assessing whole items, however, there were inconsistent structural models among each translated version, leading to variant subdomain structures for rumination, magnification and helplessness.

Psychological Treatment Strategy for Chronic Low Back Pain

Studies have indicated that chronic low back pain (LBP) should be approached according to its morphological basis and in consideration of biopsychosocial interventions. This study presents an updated review on available psychological assessments and interventions for patients with chronic LBP. Psychosocial factors, including fear-avoidance behavior, low mood/withdrawal, expectation of passive treatment, and negative pain beliefs, are known as risk factors for the development of chronic LBP. The Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire, STarT Back Screening Tool, and Brief Scale for Psychiatric Problems in Orthopaedic Patients have been used as screening tools to assess the development of chronicity or identify possible psychiatric problems. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, and Injustice Experience Questionnaire are also widely used to assess psychosocial factors in patients with chronic pain. With regard to interventions, the placebo effect can be enhanced by preferable patient-clinician relationship. Reassurance to patients with non-specific pain is advised by many guidelines. Cognitive behavioral therapy focuses on restructuring the negative cognition of the patient into realistic appraisal. Mindfulness may help improve pain acceptance. Self-management strategies with appropriate goal setting and pacing theory have proved to improve long-term pain-related outcomes in patients with chronic pain.

Locomotive syndrome: clinical perspectives

The deterioration of locomotive components, which comprise bones, joints, and intervertebral discs, and muscles and nerves, can lead to symptoms such as pain, limitations in the range of joint mobility, malalignment, impaired balance, and difficulty walking. Locomotive syndrome (LoS) was proposed by the Japanese Orthopedic Association in 2007 as a concept for people who are at a high risk of developing a musculoskeletal ambulation disability attributed to locomotor organs. Although many international articles related to LoS have been published, an international consensus of this concept seems to be lacking. This review article on LoS introduces the concept, the related assessment methods, and the condition's prevalence based on the most up-to-date literature, and discusses discrimination from frailty and sarcopenia, relevance to musculoskeletal problems, management plan, and future directions. Familiarity with recent evidence would be useful for the health care providers in an aging society to educate individuals with LoS or pre-LoS and to maintain their well-being and prevent them from requiring long-term care.