Suppr超能文献

慢性疼痛与人格测量:状态会影响特质吗?

Chronic pain and the measurement of personality: do states influence traits?

作者信息

Fishbain David A, Cole Brandly, Cutler R Brian, Lewis J, Rosomoff Hubert L, Rosomoff R Steele

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry, University of Miami School of Medicine, 1400 NW 10th Avenue, Miami, FL 33136, USA.

出版信息

Pain Med. 2006 Nov-Dec;7(6):509-29. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2006.00239.x.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

This is a structured evidence-based review of all available studies on the effect of pain, (a state phenomenon) on the measurement of personality characteristics (a trait phenomenon).

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether pain treatment changes trait scores.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Recent evidence from the psychiatric literature indicates that the measurement of personality characteristics (traits) can be affected or changed by the presence of state psychiatric disorders, for example, depression. At issue then is whether the measurement of chronic pain patients' (CPPs') trait characteristics is affected by the presence of pain, a state problem.

METHODS

Computer and manual literature searches for pain studies that reported a prepain treatment and postpain treatment (test-retest) personality test or inventory score produced 35 such reports. These references were reviewed in detail and information relating to the above problem was abstracted and placed into tabular form. Each report was also categorized as to the type of study it represented according to the guidelines developed by the Agency of Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR). In addition, a list of 15 quality criteria was utilized to measure the quality of each study. Each study was independently categorized for each criterion as positive (criterion filled), negative (criterion not filled), or not applicable, by two of the authors. Only studies having a quality score of 65% or greater were utilized to formulate the conclusions of this review. The strength and consistency of the evidence represented by the remaining studies were then categorized according to the AHCPR guidelines. Conclusions of this review were based on these results.

RESULTS

Of the 35 reports, 32 had quality scores of 65% or greater. According to the AHCPR guidelines, there was a consistent finding that the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) scores changed (improved) with treatment. In reference to the Millon Behavioral Health Inventory, Locus of Control, the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R), trait anxiety, and personality disorders, there were not enough studies to draw conclusions about consistency. In reference to coping/self-efficacy inventories, somatization/illness behavior inventories, and personality questionnaire studies, there was a generally consistent finding that these tests changed (improved) with pain treatment. Overall, of the 32 reports, 92.3% demonstrated a change in trait scores (improvement) with pain treatment. This evidence was categorized as consistent. Finally, 100% of a subgroup of reports (N = 12) that had controlled for pain indicated that there was a relationship between a change in pain scores and a change in trait scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the above results, it was concluded that some trait tests and inventories may not be pain state independent. Therefore, caution is warranted in interpreting postpain development personality profiles as being indicative of the true prepain personality structure, if measured by these tests. Why trait scores may change with treatment, confounding test-retest issues, and whether trait tests actually measure what they allegedly measure are discussed.

摘要

研究设计

这是一项基于现有所有研究的结构化循证综述,这些研究探讨了疼痛(一种状态现象)对人格特征测量(一种特质现象)的影响。

目的

确定疼痛治疗是否会改变特质分数。

背景数据总结

精神病学文献的最新证据表明,状态性精神障碍(如抑郁症)的存在会影响或改变人格特征(特质)的测量。那么问题在于,慢性疼痛患者(CPPs)的特质特征测量是否会受到疼痛这一状态问题的影响。

方法

通过计算机和人工检索疼痛研究,这些研究报告了疼痛治疗前和治疗后(重测)的人格测试或量表分数,共找到35份此类报告。对这些参考文献进行了详细审查,并提取了与上述问题相关的信息并制成表格形式。根据医疗保健政策与研究机构(AHCPR)制定的指南,每份报告还被归类为其所代表的研究类型。此外,使用了一份包含15项质量标准的清单来衡量每项研究的质量。两位作者分别独立地将每项研究的每个标准归类为阳性(标准满足)、阴性(标准未满足)或不适用。只有质量得分达到65%或更高的研究才被用于形成本综述的结论。然后根据AHCPR指南对其余研究的证据强度和一致性进行分类。本综述的结论基于这些结果。

结果

在35份报告中,32份的质量得分达到65%或更高。根据AHCPR指南,有一个一致的发现,即明尼苏达多相人格量表(MMPI)分数随治疗而改变(改善)。对于米隆行为健康量表、控制点、症状自评量表-90修订版(SCL-90-R)、特质焦虑和人格障碍,没有足够的研究来得出关于一致性的结论。对于应对/自我效能感量表、躯体化/疾病行为量表和人格问卷研究,有一个普遍一致的发现,即这些测试随疼痛治疗而改变(改善)。总体而言,在32份报告中,92.3%表明特质分数随疼痛治疗而改变(改善)。这一证据被归类为一致。最后,在一组对疼痛进行了控制的报告(N = 12)中,100%表明疼痛分数的变化与特质分数的变化之间存在关联。

结论

基于上述结果,得出结论:一些特质测试和量表可能并非独立于疼痛状态。因此,如果通过这些测试进行测量,在将疼痛治疗后的人格概况解释为真正的疼痛前人格结构时应谨慎。文中讨论了特质分数为何可能随治疗而改变、混淆重测问题以及特质测试是否真的测量了它们所声称测量的内容。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验