Pain psychology in the 21st century: lessons learned and moving forward

Background and aims In the spring of 2019, Professor Steven J. Linton, the founder of the Center for Health and Medical Psychology (CHAMP) at Örebro University, Sweden, formally retired. As a tribute to his scholarly work covering decades of influence and inspiration to the field of pain psychology, the research center organized a topical conference titled “Pain in the 21st century: Where do we come from and where are we going?”, which resulted in this state-of the-art synthesis. The aim of this declaration is to highlight lessons learned but not in the least is meant to inspire and guide our continued journey forward, developing pain psychology into the 21st century. Methods Several collaborators of Professor Linton have summarized and reflected on the current state-of-the-art of pain psychology from the perspective of his input to the field, as well as on developments from the last years of advancements in pain psychology. Results The topics have been divided into six themed sections covering the fear avoidance model, transdiagnostics, secondary prevention, risk- and protective factors, communication and contextual factors. The sections cover a broad spectrum, from basic experimental studies, integrating emotion and motivational theories into current theoretical models, to applied research on the effect of early interventions as well as sophisticated emotion-focused treatment models for pain patients with concurrent emotional ill-health. Conclusions There have been major advancements within pain psychology research during the last decades, moving the field towards a more comprehensive picture, taking emotional and motivational aspects into account to understand pain sufferers. Although psychologically informed interventions in general mainly focus on the individual, it has been put forward that pain management is highly influenced by the surrounding environment, including communication with health care providers, and the occupational and social context. Implications Professor Steven J. Linton has been at the forefront of pain psychology research during the last decades, and inspired by his work this journey will continue into the 21st century, with the ultimate goal of enhancing the understanding and treatment for all people suffering from persistent and disabling pain

Validation of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire-8 in an Australian pain clinic sample

Background: Recently, an 8-item short-form version of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ-8) was developed predominantly in an internet sample. Further investigation of the factor structure in a multidisciplinary pain clinic sample is required. Investigation of the concurrent validity of the CPAQ-8 after accounting for the effects of variables commonly measured in the pain clinic setting is also necessary. Purpose: This study examines the factor structure and concurrent validity of the CPAQ-8 in a sample of treatmentseeking patients who attended a multidisciplinary pain clinic. Methods: Participants were 334 patients who attended an Australian multidisciplinary pain service. Participants completed the CPAQ, a demographic questionnaire, and measures of patient adjustment and functioning. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis identified a two-factor 8-item model consisting of Activity Engagement and Pain Willingness factors (SRMR=0.039, RMSEA=0.063, CFI=0.973, TLI=0.960) was superior to both the CPAQ and CPAQ with an item removed. The CPAQ and CPAQ-8 total scores were highly correlated (r=0.93). After accounting for pain intensity, the CPAQ-8 was a significant predictor of depression, anxiety, stress, and disability. The subscales of the CPAQ-8 were both unique contributors to depression and disability in regression analyses, after accounting for pain intensity and kinesiophobia, and after accounting for pain intensity and catastrophizing. Conclusions: The CPAQ-8 has a sound factor structure and similar psychometric properties to the CPAQ; it may have clinical utility as a measure of pain acceptance in treatmentseeking, chronic pain patients

The chronic pain coping inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis of the French version

BACKGROUND: Coping strategies are among the psychosocial factors hypothesized to contribute to the development of chronic musculoskeletal disability. The Chronic Pain Coping Inventory (CPCI) was developed to assess eight behavioral coping strategies targeted in multidisciplinary pain treatment (Guarding, Resting, Asking for Assistance, Task Persistence, Relaxation, Exercise/Stretch, Coping Self-Statements and Seeking Social Support). The present study had two objectives. First, it aimed at measuring the internal consistency and the construct validity of the French version of the CPCI. Second, it aimed to verify if, as suggested by the CPCI authors, the scales of this instrument can be grouped according to the following coping families: Illness-focused coping and Wellness-focused coping. METHOD: The CPCI was translated into French with the forward and backward translation procedure. To evaluate internal consistency, Cronbach's alphas were computed. Construct validity of the inventory was estimated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in two samples: a group of 439 Quebecois workers on sick leave in the sub-acute stage of low back pain (less than 84 days after the work accident) and a group of 388 French chronic pain patients seen in a pain clinic. A CFA was also performed to evaluate if the CPCI scales were grouped into two coping families (i.e. Wellness-focused and Illness-focused coping). RESULTS: The French version of the CPCI had adequate internal consistency in both samples. The CFA confirmed the eight-scale structure of the CPCI. A series of second-order CFA confirmed the composition of the Illness-focused family of coping (Guarding, Resting and Asking for Assistance). However, the composition of the Wellness-focused family of coping (Relaxation, Exercise/Stretch, Coping Self-Statements and Seeking Social Support) was different than the one proposed by the authors of the CPCI. Also, a positive correlation was observed between Illness and Wellness coping families. CONCLUSION: The present study indicates that the internal consistency and construct validity of the French version of the CPCI were adequate, but the grouping and labeling of the CPCI families of coping are debatable and deserve further analysis in the context of musculoskeletal and pain rehabilitation

Relationship between psychological factors and performance-based and self-reported disability in chronic low back pain

Cross sectional study, performed in an outpatient university based pain rehabilitation setting. To analyze the relationship between psychological factors (psychosocial distress, depression, self efficacy, self-esteem, fear of movement, pain cognitions and coping reactions) and performance-based and self-reported disability, as measured with a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). It has been suggested that a strong relationship exists between psychological factors and disability in patients with CLBP. In former research disability was often measured by self-report and seldom performance-based. Study sample consisted of 92 patients with CLBP admitted for multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Prior to treatment, all patients completed questionnaires to measure psychological factors and self-reported disability, and performed an FCE to measure performance-based disability. Correlation coefficients between psychological variables and FCE and self-reported disability were calculated. Multivariate linear regression analyses were performed with self-reported or performance based disability measures as outcome variables, and psychological measures as predictor variables. Out of 42 relations analyzed, 5 were statistically significant. This concerned one significant correlation between kinesiophobia and a subtest of FCE, and four correlations between psychological factors and RMDQ. No correlation was significant after the Bonferroni correction was applied (P < 0.001). The strength of significant correlations ranged from r = −0.33 to r = 0.25. The multivariate analysis revealed that psychological variables measured in this study could explain 19% of the variance of self-reported disability, with kinesiophobia being the only psychological variable that contributed significantly. The suggested strong relationship between psychological factors and performance-based and self-reported disability could not be confirmed in this study. This may implicate that the relationship between psychological factors and disability in patients with CLBP is not as unambiguous as suggested

Active rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Cognitive-behavioral, physical, or both? First direct post-treatment results from a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN22714229]

BACKGROUND: The treatment of non-specific chronic low back pain is often based on three different models regarding the development and maintenance of pain and especially functional limitations: the deconditioning model, the cognitive behavioral model and the biopsychosocial model. There is evidence that rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain is more effective than no treatment, but information is lacking about the differential effectiveness of different kinds of rehabilitation. A direct comparison of a physical, a cognitive-behavioral treatment and a combination of both has never been carried out so far. METHODS: The effectiveness of active physical, cognitive-behavioral and combined treatment for chronic non-specific low back pain compared with a waiting list control group was determined by performing a randomized controlled trial in three rehabilitation centers. Two hundred and twenty three patients were randomized, using concealed block randomization to one of the following treatments, which they attended three times a week for 10 weeks: Active Physical Treatment (APT), Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment (CBT), Combined Treatment of APT and CBT (CT), or Waiting List (WL). The outcome variables were self-reported functional limitations, patient's main complaints, pain, mood, self-rated treatment effectiveness, treatment satisfaction and physical performance including walking, standing up, reaching forward, stair climbing and lifting. Assessments were carried out by blinded research assistants at baseline and immediately post-treatment. The data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: For 212 patients, data were available for analysis. After treatment, significant reductions were observed in functional limitations, patient's main complaints and pain intensity for all three active treatments compared to the WL. Also, the self-rated treatment effectiveness and satisfaction appeared to be higher in the three active treatments. Several physical performance tasks improved in APT and CT but not in CBT. No clinically relevant differences were found between the CT and APT, or between CT and CBT. CONCLUSION: All three active treatments were effective in comparison to no treatment, but no clinically relevant differences between the combined and the single component treatments were found

Effectiveness of behavioural graded activity compared with physiotherapy treatment in chronic neck pain: design of a randomised clinical trial [ISRCTN88733332]

BACKGROUND: Chronic neck pain is a common complaint in the Netherlands with a point prevalence of 14.3%. Patients with chronic neck pain are often referred to a physiotherapist and, although many treatments are available, it remains unclear which type of treatment is to be preferred. The objective of this article is to present the design of a randomised clinical trial, Ephysion, which examines the clinical and cost effectiveness of behavioural graded activity compared with a physiotherapy treatment for patients with chronic non-specific neck pain. METHODS: Eligible patients with non-specific neck pain persisting longer than 3 months will be randomly allocated to either the behavioural graded activity programme or to the physiotherapy treatment. The graded activity programme is based on an operant approach, which uses a time-contingent method to increase the patient's activity level. This treatment is compared with physiotherapy treatment using a pain-contingent method. Primary treatment outcome is the patient's global perceived effect concerning recovery from the complaint. Global perceived effect on daily functioning is also explored as primary outcome to establish the impact of treatment on daily activity. Direct and indirect costs will also be assessed. Secondary outcomes include the patient's main complaints, pain intensity, medical consumption, functional status, quality of life, and psychological variables. Recruitment of patients will take place up to the end of the year 2004 and follow-up measurement will continue until end 2005