Within-Person Relationships between Catastrophizing and Pain Intensity During a Mind-Body Intervention to Prevent Persistent Pain and Disability after Acute Traumatic Orthopedic Injury.
Madelyn Frumkin, Julie R Brewer, Julia E Hooker, Kate N Jochimsen, Ana-Maria Vranceanu
{"title":"Within-Person Relationships between Catastrophizing and Pain Intensity During a Mind-Body Intervention to Prevent Persistent Pain and Disability after Acute Traumatic Orthopedic Injury.","authors":"Madelyn Frumkin, Julie R Brewer, Julia E Hooker, Kate N Jochimsen, Ana-Maria Vranceanu","doi":"10.1016/j.jpain.2024.104737","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Interventions aimed at preventing chronic pain after acute traumatic injury have significant potential to reduce healthcare expenditures and improve quality of life for millions of individuals. Given recent development of such interventions, limited research has examined mechanisms of change using repeated measures (e.g., session-by-session assessments). This study examines within-person relationships between pain catastrophizing and intensity during and after a four-session mind-body intervention for individuals with acute traumatic orthopedic injury (N = 76, T = 445). Random intercept cross-lagged panel models were used to examine within-person autoregressive, contemporaneous, and cross-lagged effects between pain catastrophizing and pain intensity, after accounting for stable between-person differences. Our primary hypothesis that improvements in catastrophizing would be associated with subsequent reductions in pain intensity was partially supported by a significant within-person cross-lagged effect between catastrophizing at post-test and pain with activity reported at three-month follow-up (β = 0.421, SE = 0.099, p <.001). Improvement in catastrophizing was also associated with same-session improvement in pain intensity midway through the intervention. Importantly, bidirectional within-person analyses allowed us to rule out the possibility that improvements in pain were responsible for subsequent improvements in catastrophizing, but not vice versa. Together, these findings suggest improvements in catastrophizing during psychosocial intervention may prevent transition from acute to chronic pain after injury. Future research with larger between-person sample sizes, more frequent within-person assessment, and comparable control group data is necessary to facilitate greater understanding of psychosocial mechanisms for preventing chronic pain after injury. PERSPECTIVE: This study examines within-person relationships between pain catastrophizing and intensity during and after a four-session mind-body intervention to prevent persistent pain after acute traumatic orthopedic injury. Improved catastrophizing at post-test was associated with reduced pain with activity at three-month follow-up. Within-person analyses enhance understanding of psychosocial mechanisms for preventing chronic pain after injury.</p>","PeriodicalId":51095,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":"104737"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2024.104737","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Interventions aimed at preventing chronic pain after acute traumatic injury have significant potential to reduce healthcare expenditures and improve quality of life for millions of individuals. Given recent development of such interventions, limited research has examined mechanisms of change using repeated measures (e.g., session-by-session assessments). This study examines within-person relationships between pain catastrophizing and intensity during and after a four-session mind-body intervention for individuals with acute traumatic orthopedic injury (N = 76, T = 445). Random intercept cross-lagged panel models were used to examine within-person autoregressive, contemporaneous, and cross-lagged effects between pain catastrophizing and pain intensity, after accounting for stable between-person differences. Our primary hypothesis that improvements in catastrophizing would be associated with subsequent reductions in pain intensity was partially supported by a significant within-person cross-lagged effect between catastrophizing at post-test and pain with activity reported at three-month follow-up (β = 0.421, SE = 0.099, p <.001). Improvement in catastrophizing was also associated with same-session improvement in pain intensity midway through the intervention. Importantly, bidirectional within-person analyses allowed us to rule out the possibility that improvements in pain were responsible for subsequent improvements in catastrophizing, but not vice versa. Together, these findings suggest improvements in catastrophizing during psychosocial intervention may prevent transition from acute to chronic pain after injury. Future research with larger between-person sample sizes, more frequent within-person assessment, and comparable control group data is necessary to facilitate greater understanding of psychosocial mechanisms for preventing chronic pain after injury. PERSPECTIVE: This study examines within-person relationships between pain catastrophizing and intensity during and after a four-session mind-body intervention to prevent persistent pain after acute traumatic orthopedic injury. Improved catastrophizing at post-test was associated with reduced pain with activity at three-month follow-up. Within-person analyses enhance understanding of psychosocial mechanisms for preventing chronic pain after injury.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Pain publishes original articles related to all aspects of pain, including clinical and basic research, patient care, education, and health policy. Articles selected for publication in the Journal are most commonly reports of original clinical research or reports of original basic research. In addition, invited critical reviews, including meta analyses of drugs for pain management, invited commentaries on reviews, and exceptional case studies are published in the Journal. The mission of the Journal is to improve the care of patients in pain by providing a forum for clinical researchers, basic scientists, clinicians, and other health professionals to publish original research.