The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society
-
Progress in the understanding of chronic pain with neuropathic features has been hindered by a lack of epidemiologic research in the general population. The Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs score (S-LANSS) was recently validated for use in postal surveys, making the identification of pain of predominantly neuropathic origin possible. Six family practices in 3 UK cities (Aberdeen, Leeds, and London) generated a total random sample of 6,000 adults. The mailed questionnaire included demographic items, chronic pain identification, and intensity questions, the S-LANSS, the Level of Expressed Needs questionnaire, and the Neuropathic Pain Scale. With a corrected response rate of 52%, the prevalence of any chronic pain was 48% and the prevalence of pain of predominantly neuropathic origin was 8%. Respondents with this chronic neuropathic pain were significantly more likely to be female, slightly older, no longer married, living in council rented accommodation, unable to work, have no educational qualifications, and be smokers than all other respondents. Multiple logistic regression modeling found that pain of predominantly neuropathic origin was independently associated with older age, gender, employment (being unable to work), and lower educational attainment. Respondents with this pain type also reported significantly greater pain intensity, higher scores on the NPS, higher levels of expressed need, and longer duration of pain. This is the first estimate of the prevalence and distribution of pain of predominantly neuropathic origin in the general population, using a previously validated and reliable data collection instrument. ⋯ Chronic pain with neuropathic features appears to be more common in the general population than previously suggested. This type of pain is more severe than other chronic pain but distributed similarly throughout sociodemographic groups.
-
In the United States, quality improvement (QI) approaches have been used to evaluate pain management. However, the use of QI approaches to evaluate the quality of patient care is just emerging in many European countries. The purposes of this study, using the American Pain Society's QI Standards, were: to describe changes over time, in pain severity, in pain interference with function, and in the doses of analgesics administered; to describe patients' level of satisfaction with postoperative pain management; and to determine the relationships between pain severity and patient outcomes. Results from a sample of patients who underwent orthopedic surgery suggest that undertreatment of pain persists across the first 5 postoperative days and that pain's level of interference with function decreases significantly between the third and fifth postoperative days. As in other studies, despite high pain intensity scores, patients reported high levels of satisfaction with postoperative pain management. ⋯ Findings suggest that the undertreatment of pain results in significant decrements in function over the first 5 postoperative days. Future studies designed to improve the quality of postoperative pain management need to use multimodal approaches and evaluate not only pain intensity, but improvements in function as critical outcome measures.
-
The aim of this study was to examine whether treatments based on different theories change pain catastrophizing and internal control of pain, and whether changes in these factors mediate treatment outcome. Participants were 211 patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP) participating in a randomized controlled trial, attending active physical treatment (APT, n = 52), cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT, n = 55), treatment combining the APT and CBT (CT, n = 55), or waiting list (WL, n = 49). Pain catastrophizing decreased in all 3 active treatment groups and not in the WL. There was no difference in the change in internal control across all 4 groups. In all the active treatment groups, patients improved regarding perceived disability, main complaints, and current pain at post-treatment, and no changes were observed in the WL group. Depression only changed significantly in the APT group. Change in pain catastrophizing mediated the reduction of disability, main complaints, and pain intensity. In the APT condition, pain catastrophizing also mediated the reduction of depression. Not only cognitive-behavioral treatments but also a physical treatment produced changes in pain catastrophizing that seemed to mediate the outcome of the treatment significantly. The implications and limitations of these results are discussed. ⋯ This article shows that treatment elements that do not deliberately target cognitive factors can reduce pain catastrophizing. Reduction in pain catastrophizing seemed to mediate the improvement of functioning in patients with chronic low back pain. The results might contribute to the development of more effective interventions.
-
Previous research has demonstrated that 2-item versions of subscales from the Chronic Pain Coping Inventory, Coping Strategy Questionnaire, and the Survey of Pain Attitudes appear adequately reliable and valid for use in studies with large sample sizes. It was suggested that use of the abbreviated scales might help to expand the testing and application of cognitive-behavioral models of pain to new settings and with new populations where assessment burden might be a key issue. This study explored the utility of these brief scales among veterans in a Veterans Affairs setting. Strong associations were found between the 2-item versions and their respective parent scales. In addition, the 2-item scales were found to be associated with other pain-related measures, supporting their predictive validity. The results of this study replicate previous findings and offer support for the use of the 2-item versions for both screening and research purposes in Veterans Affairs settings with a veteran population. ⋯ This article presents the psychometric properties of brief versions of 3 commonly used pain coping and belief questionnaires in a unique population. These measures could be used clinically for initial screening purposes, as well as for treatment monitoring.
-
Little is known about primary care physicians' (PCPs) prescribing of opioids. We describe trends and factors associated with opioid prescribing during PCP visits over the past decade. Using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, we found an opioid prescribed in 2,206 (5%) PCP visits from 1992 to 2001. The prevalence of visits where an opioid was prescribed increased from a low of 41 per 1000 visits in 1992-1993 to a peak of 63 per 1000 in 1998-1999 (P < .0001 for trend) and then stabilized (59 per 1000 in 2000-2001). Several factors increased the odds of receiving an opioid: having Medicaid (odds ratio [OR] 2.09 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.82-2.40]) or Medicare (OR 2.00 [95% CI 1.68-2.39]); having a visit between 15 and 35 minutes (OR 1.16 [95% CI 1.05-1.27]); and receiving an NSAID (OR 2.27 [95% CI 2.04-2.53]). Patients of hispanic (OR .67 [95% CI .56-.81]) or other race/ethnicity (OR .68 [95% CI .52-.90]), patients in health maintenance organizations (OR .74 [95% CI .66-.84]), and those living in the northeast (OR .60 [95% CI .51-.69]) or midwest (OR .75 [95% CI .66-.85]) had lower odds of receiving an opioid. Substantial variation exists in opioid prescribing by PCPs. Now that pain management standards are advocated, understanding the dynamics of opioid prescribing is necessary. ⋯ This study describes a decade-long increase in opioid prescribing by U.S. primary care physicians and identifies important geographic-, racial/ethnic-, and insurance-related differences in who receives these medications. Several underlying factors, including regulatory and legal pressures, attitudes and knowledge of opioids, and publicized opioid-related events, may contribute to these differences.