Lauren Perlman, Naomi Malka, Oliver Terry, Alex Nguyen, Lucas Guimarães Ferreira Fonseca, Juan I Ingelmo, Pablo Ingelmo
{"title":"Non-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Psychological Interventions May Not Make the Difference in Children and Adolescents With Chronic Pain.","authors":"Lauren Perlman, Naomi Malka, Oliver Terry, Alex Nguyen, Lucas Guimarães Ferreira Fonseca, Juan I Ingelmo, Pablo Ingelmo","doi":"10.2147/JPR.S503542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Chronic pain in pediatric populations presents a multifaceted challenge with biopsychosocial impact, requiring a multidisciplinary approach including psychological treatment. At our interdisciplinary pain center, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic-related disruptions led to the cessation of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and other psychological interventions during the pandemic. The aim of this retrospective cohort study with secondary retrospective matched case-control analysis was to evaluate the impact of interruption of non-CBT psychological interventions, namely psychoanalysis and psychodynamic psychotherapy, on children and adolescents with chronic pain conditions during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We included pediatric patients with primary and secondary chronic pain conditions evaluated by our team during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We excluded patients who did not receive psychological intervention when available, those with incomplete data on initial evaluation or follow-up, and those who received outside psychiatric care or individual or group CBT. The primary outcome was a Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score of 6-7. Secondary outcome measures were pain intensity, use of pain medication, sleep, physical function, school attendance, the incidence of suicidality, and the reason for end of treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 146 patients, 77 who received non-CBT psychological interventions and 69 who did not receive any psychological interventions. We found no meaningful difference between the use of non-CBT psychological intervention and no treatment in the incidence of PGIC 6-7 points, pain intensity, school attendance, physical function, suicidality, and cause of end of treatment. Patients not receiving any psychological interventions were more likely to have normalized sleep at the end of treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Non-CBT psychological interventions, namely psychoanalysis and psychodynamic psychotherapy, were not associated with meaningful benefits for children and adolescents with chronic pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients who did not receive psychological interventions reported normalization of their sleep at the end of treatment compared to those who participated in non-CBT interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":16661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain Research","volume":"18 ","pages":"1451-1464"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11932939/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S503542","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and aim: Chronic pain in pediatric populations presents a multifaceted challenge with biopsychosocial impact, requiring a multidisciplinary approach including psychological treatment. At our interdisciplinary pain center, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic-related disruptions led to the cessation of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and other psychological interventions during the pandemic. The aim of this retrospective cohort study with secondary retrospective matched case-control analysis was to evaluate the impact of interruption of non-CBT psychological interventions, namely psychoanalysis and psychodynamic psychotherapy, on children and adolescents with chronic pain conditions during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Materials and methods: We included pediatric patients with primary and secondary chronic pain conditions evaluated by our team during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We excluded patients who did not receive psychological intervention when available, those with incomplete data on initial evaluation or follow-up, and those who received outside psychiatric care or individual or group CBT. The primary outcome was a Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score of 6-7. Secondary outcome measures were pain intensity, use of pain medication, sleep, physical function, school attendance, the incidence of suicidality, and the reason for end of treatment.
Results: The study included 146 patients, 77 who received non-CBT psychological interventions and 69 who did not receive any psychological interventions. We found no meaningful difference between the use of non-CBT psychological intervention and no treatment in the incidence of PGIC 6-7 points, pain intensity, school attendance, physical function, suicidality, and cause of end of treatment. Patients not receiving any psychological interventions were more likely to have normalized sleep at the end of treatment.
Conclusion: Non-CBT psychological interventions, namely psychoanalysis and psychodynamic psychotherapy, were not associated with meaningful benefits for children and adolescents with chronic pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients who did not receive psychological interventions reported normalization of their sleep at the end of treatment compared to those who participated in non-CBT interventions.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Pain Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that welcomes laboratory and clinical findings in the fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Original research, reviews, symposium reports, hypothesis formation and commentaries are all considered for publication. Additionally, the journal now welcomes the submission of pain-policy-related editorials and commentaries, particularly in regard to ethical, regulatory, forensic, and other legal issues in pain medicine, and to the education of pain practitioners and researchers.