Davis Claude Ervin, Kyle Brandon N, Thorp Jacob, Wu Qiang, Firnhaber Juan
School of Dental Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA; Vidant Pain Management Center, Greenville, North Carolina, USA.
Pain Med. 2015 Apr;16(4):753-60. doi: 10.1111/pme.12526. Epub 2014 Aug 4.
Subgroups of patients with chronic low back pain may exhibit differences in self-reported measures of pain, functioning, coping, and psychological distress. The present study compared subgroups of patients with chronic low back pain referred either for pre-spinal cord stimulator (SCS) psychological evaluations or for behavioral pain management (BPM).
Measures from comprehensive pain, functioning, and psychological assessments were compared using multivariate ancova.
Tertiary care medical outpatient pain management center.
One hundred and two patients (64% female, mean age = 53.7, standard deviation = 14.3) with chronic low back pain diagnoses were evaluated either as possible candidates for SCS (N = 73) or as part of treatment planning for BPM (N = 29).
These groups were compared on measures of pain, interference, disability, pain-related anxiety, pain coping, pain catastrophizing, depression, post-traumatic stress symptoms, affective distress, and interpersonal distress assessed using standardized scales. It was hypothesized that the two groups would report similar levels of pain, functioning, and coping, but pre-SCS patients would report fewer psychological symptoms of psychological distress compared with BPM patients in order to gain approval for SCS.
Consistent with hypotheses, BPM and pre-SCS patients reported similar pain, functioning, and coping, but pre-SCS patients reported fewer psychological symptoms.
Pre-SCS patients possibly underreport psychological symptoms perhaps to gain SCS approval for SCS. Separate norms and cutoffs for pre-SCS psychological evaluations may be needed to better identify risks of unsuccessful outcomes. Validity scales for measures of psychological distress also could be developed to detect biased reporting. Alternatively, referring clinicians may have referred patients for BPM who were more psychologically distressed and perceived as more in need of psychosocial intervention than those referred for pre-SCS evaluations. Further investigation of clinical referral decisions and assessment bias is warranted to clarify the meaning of these differences and how they apply to patient outcomes.
慢性下腰痛患者亚组在自我报告的疼痛、功能、应对方式及心理困扰测量方面可能存在差异。本研究比较了因脊髓刺激器(SCS)植入前心理评估或行为疼痛管理(BPM)而转诊的慢性下腰痛患者亚组。
使用多变量协方差分析比较综合疼痛、功能及心理评估的测量结果。
三级医疗门诊疼痛管理中心。
102例慢性下腰痛患者(64%为女性,平均年龄=53.7岁,标准差=14.3),被评估为SCS可能候选人(N=73)或作为BPM治疗计划的一部分(N=29)。
使用标准化量表对这些组在疼痛、干扰、残疾、疼痛相关焦虑、疼痛应对、疼痛灾难化、抑郁、创伤后应激症状、情感困扰及人际困扰测量方面进行比较。假设两组在疼痛、功能及应对方面报告的水平相似,但SCS植入前患者报告的心理困扰症状比BPM患者少,以便获得SCS植入批准。
与假设一致,BPM组和SCS植入前患者报告的疼痛、功能及应对情况相似,但SCS植入前患者报告的心理症状较少。
SCS植入前患者可能少报心理症状,也许是为了获得SCS植入批准。可能需要SCS植入前心理评估的单独常模和临界值,以更好地识别不良结局风险。还可开发心理困扰测量的效度量表以检测有偏差的报告。或者,转诊医生可能将心理困扰更严重且被认为比SCS植入前评估转诊患者更需要心理社会干预的患者转诊至BPM。有必要进一步调查临床转诊决策和评估偏差,以阐明这些差异的意义及其如何应用于患者结局。