Comparing the effects of thought suppression and focused distraction on pain-related attentional biases in men and women

Increasing attentional focus away from pain can affect pain experience, suggesting that cognitive strategies that move attentional allocation may be a moderator of pain. In a pre-post-design, the present study examined the effects of 2 cognitive strategies used in pain contexts, thought suppression and focused distraction, on subsequent pain-related attention. Thought suppression was hypothesized to increase pain-related attention, whereas focused distraction was expected to reduce it. Influences of both anxiety and sex were also considered, as secondary questions. 139 (86 women, 53 men) healthy, pain-free participants were randomly assigned to use either thought suppression or focused distraction during a mild cold pressor test (CPT). Pain-related attention was examined using a dot-probe and an attentional blink task, pre-and post-CPT. Questionnaires about relevant cognitive and emotional aspects, demographics, and pain were completed. Results showed no difference in the effect of the 2 pain inhibition strategies on pain-related attention. The hypothesized rebound effect in thought suppression on pain-related attention did not emerge. However, thought suppression showed a short-term benefit in comparison to focused distraction regarding reported pain and perceived threat during the cold pressor test. Few sex differences were found. Thus, the cognitive strategies affected pain outcomes, but did not influence pain-related attention. Perspective: Cognitive strategies could help with pain through changing attention allocation. In this study, the effects of the 2 cognitive strategies thought suppression and focused distraction on pain-related attention in men and women were examined. Elucidating mechanisms that lie behind pain strategies that focus on changing attention may help improve treatments.</p

Parameters of low back pain chronicity among athletes: associations with physical and mental stress

Objective: In the general population, physical and mental stress factors are linked to chronic low back pain (LBP). The aim of the present study was to examine this association among athletes

Clinical decision rule for primary care patient with acute low back pain at risk of developing chronic pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Primary care clinicians need to identify candidates for early interventions to prevent patients with acute pain from developing chronic pain. PURPOSE: We conducted a 2-year prospective cohort study of risk factors for the progression to chronic pain and developed and internally validated a clinical decision rule (CDR) that stratifies patients into low, medium and high-risk groups for chronic pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective cohort study in primary care. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients with acute low back pain (LBP; ≤30 days duration) OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported perceived non-recovery and chronic pain. METHODS: Patients were surveyed at baseline, 6 months and 2 years. We conducted bivariate and multivariate regression analyses of demographic, clinical and psychosocial variables for chronic pain outcomes, developed a CDR and assessed its performance by calculating the bootstrapped areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and likelihood ratios. This study was supported by NIH/NCCAM grants K23 AT002298, R21 AT004467, NIH/NCCAM K24 AT007827, the Research Evaluation and Allocation Committee (REAC) of the University of California San Francisco, and the Mount Zion Health Fund, San Francisco. The funding agencies played no role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. The authors report no conflict of interests. RESULTS: 605 patients enrolled. 13% had chronic pain at 6 months, 19% at 2 years. An eight-item CDR was most parsimonious for classifying patients into three risk levels. Bootstrapped AUC was 0.76 (0.70–0.82) for the 6-month CDR. Each 10-point score increase (60-point range) was associated with an odds ratio of 11.1 (10.8–11.4) for developing chronic pain. Using a <5% probability of chronic pain as the cutoff for low risk and a >40% probability for high risk, likelihood ratios were 0.26 (0.14–0.48) and 4.4 (3.0–6.3) for these groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A CDR was developed that may help primary care clinicians classify patients with strictly defined acute LBP into low, moderate and high-risk groups for developing chronic pain and performed acceptably in 1,000 bootstrapped replications. Validation in a separate sample is needed

Competing goals attenuate avoidance behavior in the context of pain

Current fear-avoidance models consider pain-related fear as a crucial factor in the development of chronic pain. However, pain-related fear often occurs in a context of multiple, competing goals. This study investigated whether pain-related fear and avoidance behavior are attenuated when individuals are faced with a pain avoidance goal and another valued but competing goal, operationalized as obtaining a monetary reward. Fifty-five healthy participants moved a joystick toward different targets. In the experimental condition, a movement to one target (conditioned stimulus [CS+]) was followed by a painful unconditioned stimulus (pain-US) and a rewarding unconditioned stimulus (reward-US) on 50% of the trials, whereas the other movement (nonreinforced conditioned stimulus [CS)) movement was not. In the control condition, the CS+ movement was followed by the pain-US only. Results showed that pain-related fear was elevated in response to the CS+ compared to the CS movement, but that it was not influenced by the reward-US. Interestingly, participants initiated a CS+ movement slower than a CS movement in the control condition but not in the experimental condition. Also, in choice trials, participants performed the CS+ movement more frequently in the experimental than in the control condition. These results suggest that the presence of a valued competing goal can attenuate avoidance behavior. Perspective: The current study provides experimental evidence that both pain and competing goals impact on behavioral decision making and avoidance behavior. These results provide experimental support for treatments of chronic pain that include an individual's pursuit of valuable daily life goals, rather than limiting focus to pain reduction only. (C) 2014 by the American Pain Societ

Psychometric Properties of an Arabic Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale-20 (PASS-20) in Healthy Volunteers and Patients Attending a Physiotherapy Clinic.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to cross-culturally adapt the PASS-20 questionnaire for use in Libya. METHODS: Participants were 71 patients (42 women) attending the physiotherapy clinic, Ibn Sina Hospital, Sirt, Libya for management of persistent pain and 137 healthy unpaid undergraduate students (52 women) from the University of Sirt, Libya. The English PASS-20 was translated into Arabic. Patients completed the Arabic PASS-20 and the Arabic Pain Rating Scales on two occasions separated by a 14-day interval. Healthy participants completed the Arabic PASS-20 on one occasion. RESULTS: The internal consistency (ICC) for pain patient and healthy participant samples yielded a good reliability for the total score, cognitive anxiety, fear of pain, and physiological anxiety. The test-retest reliability of the Arabic PASS-20 score showed high reliability for the total score (ICC = 0.93, p < 0.001), escape/avoidance (ICC = 0.93, p < 0.001), fear of pain (ICC = 0.94, p < 0.001), and physiological anxiety subscales (ICC = 0.96, p < 0.001) and good reliability for the cognitive anxiety (ICC = 0.85, p < 0.001). Inspection of the Promax rotation showed that each factor comprised of five items were consistent with the theoretical constructs of the original PASS-20 subscales. CONCLUSION: The Arabic PASS-20 retained internal consistency and reliability with the original English version and can be used to measure pain anxiety symptoms in both pain and healthy individual samples in Libya

Prognostic factors in non-surgically treated sciatica: A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>When present sciatica is considered an obstacle to recovery in low back pain patients, yet evidence is limited regarding prognostic factors for persistent disability in this patient group. The aim of this study is to describe and summarise the evidence regarding prognostic factors for sciatica in non-surgically treated cohorts. Understanding the prognostic factors in sciatica and their relative importance may allow the identification of patients with particular risk factors who might benefit from early or specific types of treatment in order to optimise outcome.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL electronic databases. Prospective cohort studies describing subjects with sciatica and measuring pain, disability or recovery outcomes were included. Studies of cohorts comprised entirely of surgically treated patients were excluded and mixed surgically and conservatively treated cohorts were included only if the results were analysed separately by treatment group or if the analysis was adjusted for treatment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seven adequate or high quality eligible studies were identified. There were conflicting but mainly negative results regarding the influence of baseline pain severity, neurological deficit, nerve root tension signs, duration of symptoms and radiological findings on outcome. A number of factors including age, gender, smoking, previous history of sciatica and heaviness of work do not appear to influence outcome. In contrast to studies of low back pain and purely surgically treated sciatica cohorts, psychological factors were rarely investigated.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>At present, the heterogeneity of the available studies makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about sciatica prognosis, and highlights the need for further research for this group of patients. Large scale prospective studies of high methodological quality, using a well-defined, consistent definition of sciatica and investigating psychosocial factors alongside clinical and radiological findings are recommended to identify prognostic factors in this population.</p

Predictors of long-term pain and disability in patients with low back pain investigated by magnetic resonance imaging: A longitudinal study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is possible that clinical outcome of low back pain (LBP) differs according to the presence or absence of spinal abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in which case there could be value in using MRI findings to refine case definition of LBP in epidemiological research. We therefore conducted a longitudinal study to explore whether spinal abnormalities on MRI for LBP predict prognosis after 18 months.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A consecutive series of patients aged 20-64 years, who were investigated by MRI because of mechanical LBP (median duration of current episode 16.2 months), were identified from three radiology departments, and those who agreed completed self-administered questionnaires at baseline and after a mean follow-up period of 18.5 months (a mean of 22.2 months from MRI investigation). MRI scans were assessed blind to other clinical information, according to a standardised protocol. Associations of baseline MRI findings with pain and disability at follow-up, adjusted for treatment and for other potentially confounding variables, were assessed by Poisson regression and summarised by prevalence ratios (PRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Questionnaires were completed by 240 (74%) of the patients who had agreed to be followed up. Among these 111 men and 129 women, 175 (73%) reported LBP in the past four weeks, 89 (37%) frequent LBP, and 72 (30%) disabling LBP. In patients with initial disc degeneration there was an increased risk of frequent (PR 1.3, 95%CI 1.0-1.9) and disabling LBP (PR 1.7, 95%CI 1.1-2.5) at follow-up. No other associations were found between MRI abnormalities and subsequent outcome.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our findings suggest that the MRI abnormalities examined are not major predictors of outcome in patients with LBP. They give no support to the use of MRI findings as a way of refining case definition for LBP in epidemiological research.</p